Why wouldn't bigfoot hunt humans?

Status
Not open for further replies.
"For instance, how do you know the piece of scat that you're looking at is from Bigfoot? "

You just put the last piece of the puzzle together for me...the reason we never find Footie scat is because they disguise it to look like other animal's poop.

The reason they don't hunt humans is because they have passed down the story about Daniel Boone killing great-great-great grand-pa and they know to stay away.
 
OntarioSquatch said:
Yes, but of course. Finding samples is one challenge. Another would be identifying them and getting their DNA analyzed. For instance, how do you know the piece of scat that you're looking at is from Bigfoot?

The other possible biological material that someone could find without shooting one is hair and it wasn't possible to analyze the DNA in hair without the root/follicle until just recently.



No, but if they were human, one would expect them to be a lot like us (tool use and everything). If they are Homo sapiens, I think that would change the current theory on human evolution and have strong implications for the theory of evolution in general. It's possible they're in the Homo genus like us and other species like the neanderthals, but that would be hard for anyone to say even if someone has a degree in a relevant field like anthropology. Traits like their head shape, short neck, eye shine and pheromone glands suggest they have some considerable genetic differences. With the exception of size, they seem to match the description of many species that split off from us around 3 million years ago. That would put them somewhere "between man and ape".
Click to expand...

Oh my OS:blush:.....I think the point was kinda lost on you but by golly I appreciate you taking the question so serious!
Everything you propose is absurd conjecture and once again special pleading...I'll even go out on a limb and say impossible but I can't back that up and could be wrong. Please direct me to the evidence of a giant upright man/ape from 3mllion yrs ago.

But let me ask a serious question....What do you get out of these discussions and do you have a goal?
 
OntarioSquatch said:
Yes, but of course. Finding samples is one challenge. Another would be identifying them and getting their DNA analyzed. For instance, how do you know the piece of scat that you're looking at is from Bigfoot?

The other possible biological material that someone could find without shooting one is hair and it wasn't possible to analyze the DNA in hair without the root/follicle until just recently.
Click to expand...

Enthusiasts often claim to have found bigfoot nests. Such places should be a goldmine for DNA sampling. We never hear about that part. The only evidence provided are pictures of what usually look like wild hog dens or some other perfectly common explanation.

Also, we hear of bigfoot caves. Again, a treasure trove of bigfoot samples for testing. Does this happen? Nope.

It seems that enthusiasts really go out of their way not to collect evidence that would prove their beloved myth is real. It's almost as if they are playing a game...


NOTE: These methods do not require shooting one.
 
Last edited:
dmaker said:
Enthusiasts often claim to have found bigfoot nests. Such places should be a goldmine for DNA sampling. We never hear about that part. The only evidence provided are pictures of what usually look like wild hog dens or some other perfectly common explanation.

Also, we hear of bigfoot caves. Again, a treasure trove of bigfoot samples for testing. Does this happen? Nope.

It seems that enthusiasts really go out of their way not to collect evidence that would prove their beloved myth is real. It's almost as if they are playing a game...


NOTE: These methods do not require shooting one.
Click to expand...

Footie would never poop in it's own nest and they are meticulous housekeepers.
 
dmaker said:
Enthusiasts often claim to have found bigfoot nests. Such places should be a goldmine for DNA sampling. We never hear about that part. The only evidence provided are pictures of what usually look like wild hog dens or some other perfectly common explanation.

Also, we hear of bigfoot caves. Again, a treasure trove of bigfoot samples for testing. Does this happen? Nope.

It seems that enthusiasts really go out of their way not to collect evidence that would prove their beloved myth is real. It's almost as if they are playing a game...
Click to expand...

Most researchers over on the BFF and YT are full of ****. On one hand we have groups like the NAWAC who don't claim to find stuff like tree structures or nests and on the other hand we have people who do. If you pay close attention to the people who do claim stuff like that, you'll notice a lot of them are just attention-seeking hoaxers who want to be Internet heroes. It's easy to be a field researcher/habituator from behind a keyboard. The actual number of people who go out looking for an animal that most people consider to be imaginary is surprisingly small.
 
OntarioSquatch said:
Most researchers over on the BFF and YT are full of ****. On one hand we have groups like the NAWAC who don't claim to find stuff like tree structures or nests and on the other hand we have people who do. If you pay close attention to the people who do claim stuff like that, you'll notice a lot of them are just attention-seeking hoaxers who want to be Internet heroes. It's easy to be a field researcher/habituator from behind a keyboard. The actual number of people who go out looking for an animal that most people consider to be imaginary is surprisingly small.
Click to expand...

My highlight.

How small? What is that number and how did you arrive at it? I would have to disagree. It seems there are several bigfoot research organizations per state. You don't believe they go out looking for bigfoot?
 
dmaker said:
My highlight.

How small? What is that number and how did you arrive at it? I would have to disagree. It seems there are several bigfoot research organizations per state. You don't believe they go out looking for bigfoot?
Click to expand...

It's hard to say because even some research organizations are fake. The best way I can put it is that it's not as many as it appears to be.
 
OntarioSquatch said:
Most researchers over on the BFF and YT are full of ****. On one hand we have groups like the NAWAC who don't claim to find stuff like tree structures or nests and on the other hand we have people who do. If you pay close attention to the people who do claim stuff like that, you'll notice a lot of them are just attention-seeking hoaxers who want to be Internet heroes. It's easy to be a field researcher/habituator from behind a keyboard. The actual number of people who go out looking for an animal that most people consider to be imaginary is surprisingly small.
Click to expand...

Ahhhh...was it intentional that you seem to be describing yourself?
You might as well be the outreach program director of BFF as far as I can tell.
 
Wild speculation? More like the obvious.

I've noticed the people here struggle to tell the difference between an actual proponent and a hoaxer. It's not too surprising though, as they sound very similar, except a hoaxer will give themself away with things like blobsquatches and withholding evidence.
 
Last edited:
Ah, the hilarity continues.

If bigfoots are real animals . . .

then they get hungry and eat. They process that food, and poop. They get horny, and mate. They have an integument that sheds cells throughout their environment. They fall prey to predators, accidents, disease, and old age, and eventually they die. All of these things leave behind physical evidence of their existence.

For the 99th time, any piece of tissue that could provide a DNA sample has the possibility of proving the existence of bigfoot. All the investigator needs to do is determine where the sample best fits on a phylogenetic tree of organisms with the most similar DNA (Delson et al. 1977 first did this for hominids). With the best samples bigfootery had to offer, this has been done by . . .

Milinkovitch et al. 2004 (source was horse)
Coltman and Davis 2006 (bison)
Disotell
Ketchum
Sykes

None has indicated anything other than known animals.
 
The Shrike said:
With the best samples bigfootery had to offer, this has been done by . . .

Milinkovitch et al. 2004 (source was horse)
Coltman and Davis 2006 (bison)
Disotell
Ketchum
Sykes

None has indicated anything other than known animals.
Click to expand...

Ketchum was a scammer though. You know that, don't you?

The number of samples sent to Bryan Sykes is a red flag for me. I'd guess that many of them are from people who know their samples aren't really from Bigfoot.
 
OntarioSquatch said:
Wild speculation? More like the obvious.

I've noticed the people here struggle to tell the difference between an actual proponent and a hoaxer. It's not too surprising though, as they sound very similar, except a hoaxer will give themself away with things like blobsquatches and withholding evidence.
Click to expand...
Can't you have an actual proponent who does some hoaxing?
 
OntarioSquatch said:
The number of samples sent to Bryan Sykes is a red flag for me. I'd guess that many of them are from people who know their samples aren't really from Bigfoot.
Click to expand...

I'd wager that somewhere, every submitter knows his/her sample isn't really from bigfoot.
 
It's easy to be a field researcher/habituator from behind a keyboard. The actual number of people who go out looking for an animal that most people consider to be imaginary is surprisingly small.
Click to expand...
Then it’s a good thing we don’t really need any dedicated bigfoot seekers. For literally thousands of years, literally millions of people have gone afield armed, in search of things to kill to sustain them, clothe them, sell to others, for symbolic reasons, for totems and trophies. From the tundra to the deserts to the fetid swamps and to the mountain tops (and the oceans, white with foam!), these intrepid searchers harvested all the large fauna, the migratory fowl, the furbearing creatures; in prime footie habitat, in California and the PNW, these folks killed every single brown bear there was to kill.

During all that however, not one single footie carcass was ever dragged out from all these habitats, either by intention or by accident. Nor any parts thereof: no skulls, no bones, no nothing. Anywhere.

So these real researchers you propose-- in whatever amount you fancy –- are covering ground that has been searched for far longer, and far better.
 
William Parcher said:
Do you suspect that or do you somehow know that?
Click to expand...

I suspect it. I can't say I know for certain. If someone believes Bigfoot is real, they will most likely go to an area where they think they exist and at least try to get evidence.


Cervelo said:
Here's one Roger Patterson ;)
Click to expand...

Maybe, but what would that mean for the attempts at discrediting the PGF by claiming the footprints are fake?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom